You are correct, of course. But what the Heartbleed showed us is that even at the scale of OpenSSL (millions of users), almost all were using it blindly. People often care more about the free in pricing aspect more than the freedom to inspect, modify and contribute - because as you say, dev time is precious.
open source doesn't necessarily mean "anyone can edit it and improve it".
I think you missed the point in the article - it was about how anyone can create or contribute to open-source. Not about submitting patches to existing projects and have them pulled upstream without any review process.
Comments
You are correct, of course. But what the Heartbleed showed us is that even at the scale of OpenSSL (millions of users), almost all were using it blindly. People often care more about the free in pricing aspect more than the freedom to inspect, modify and contribute - because as you say, dev time is precious.
I think you missed the point in the article - it was about how anyone can create or contribute to open-source. Not about submitting patches to existing projects and have them pulled upstream without any review process.
Many of them do use Microsoft Windows, but they are deliberately blinded by a few people who are centered at power.
You can look at the frequency of patches between proprietary and open source software, which shows a lot.